Enhancing Performance in Chemistry Through Game-Based Strategies: An Experimental Study

Integrating game-based strategies into chemistry curriculum is a superior educational intervention that greatly improves student performance and recall of abstract chemical principles. A study conducted by Liu et al. (2014), when game-based learning (GBL) is created with a strong pedagogical foundation, it can greatly increase student engagement and scientific comprehension by putting students in the position of active "problem-solvers."
Enhancing performance in chemistry fosters the development of critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and a comprehensive understanding of natural phenomena, which are essential for both academic and professional advancement according to Varenina, et al., (2021). One significant issue is the use of memorization rather than conceptual comprehension, which limits meaningful learning, particularly when it comes to chemistry systems and rearrangement reactions as emphasized by Grove et al., (2012). Confusion and frustration result from the inability to grasp molecular structures, comprehend chemical formulas as images of the physical world, and understand complicated concepts like interaction, polarity, and reactions involving acids and bases (Anim-Eduful et al, 2022).
A study of Kalir et al. (2017), "playful partnerships" are more important for the success of game-based learning (GBL) than the technology itself in areas with little resources, particularly in the Belizean primary education system. The authors argue against a "one-size-fits-all" approach by describing a cooperative effort between the University of Michigan and local stakeholders in Belize. Instead, they support the co-design of courses that are pedagogically and culturally relevant. The study emphasizes the value of capacity building, which enables local educators to overcome technical obstacles like inadequate hardware, and social scaffolding, where learning is motivated by human connections. In the end, the research indicates that Game-Based Learning must emphasize place-based learning that honors each student's distinct geographic and cultural identity if it is to be successful in a global setting.
Several studies from different nations have examined the issue of chemistry students' performance, pointing out a variety of aspects that influence success. In fact, a study conducted by Audu, et al., (2025) in Nigeria examined how students viewed their poor performance on chemistry exams and realized that low performance is largely caused by instructional problems, including inadequate training, insufficient teaching strategies, a lack of teaching resources, and a lack of experience. Another recent study of Kekeba, et al, (2025) discovered an excellent relationship between undergraduate students' performance in chemistry and their attitudes about the subject, their usage of science labs, and their teaching strategies.
Moreover, at Ilocos Sur National High School in Ilocos Sur, Philippines, a study was conducted by Sagcal, (2025). Its main goal was to help grade 11 students become more proficient in general chemistry by creating hands-on laboratory exercises. The study tackled problems including scarce lab supplies and students' challenges putting theoretical ideas into practice, suggesting creative, locally relevant hands-on activities to improve learning results.
Locally, engaging Grade 11 STEM students in chemistry exercises is an ongoing challenge for teachers in the Monkayo East District, especially at Union National High School. Chemistry is often considered by students to be confusing and challenging, which lowers exam scores and reduces student participation. Although traditional methods of instruction have been the standard, educators are interested in trying out game-based teaching strategies to improve student engagement and problem-solving abilities. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate how well gamification might improve performance in Chemistry of Grade 11 students in this local setting, providing to the body of knowledge in education and useful classroom innovations.
Understanding specific learning gaps in basic chemistry concepts among students, especially with regard to keeping capabilities after finishing previous grade levels, is an important academic issue. Few studies have carried out thorough diagnostic tests to determine which chemistry topics students struggle with the most and how much these problems persist over time, despite the fact that prior research has identified factors like teaching strategies, resource availability, and student attitudes as key factors. To generate targeted approaches that can enhance mastery of important concepts and promote deeper, long-term comprehension, this gap must be filled. Closing this gap will benefit society by improving the standard of scientific education generally and giving students the tools they need to succeed in STEM fields. By helping underprepared students, lowering achievement gaps, and eventually developing a scientifically literate society that can innovate and make well-informed decisions in the fields of technology and health, improving chemistry learning outcomes advances equity in education.

Game-based learning, Chemistry education, Academic performance, Experimental study, Educational strategies

1. Abao, I. Z., Dingcog, C., & Derilo, R. (2025). Gamifying Chemistry: Enhancing Students’ Understanding of Electron Configuration and Lewis Dot Structures through Kahoot!. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abenes, F. M. D., & Caballes, D. G. (2020). Misconceptions in chemistry of high school teachers and its origin. CiiT International Journal of Data Mining and Knowledge Engineering, 12(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Adipat, L., Laksana, A., Busayanon, S., Asawasowan, A., & Adipat, H. (2021). The role of game-based learning in improving student engagement and motivation in higher education. Asian Journal of University Education, 17(3), 544-561. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Afari, E., Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Khine, M. S. (2013). Students’ perceptions of the learning environment and attitudes in game-based mathematics classrooms. Learning Environments Research, 16(1), 131-150. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ahmad, W. Y., & Zakaria, M. B. (2000). Drawing Lewis structures from Lewis symbols: A direct electron-pairing approach. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(3), 329. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.01.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Almahdawi, M., Qablan, A., & Alyammahi, F. (2025). Factors influencing UAE high school chemistry students’ learning of organic qualitative analysis. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(7), em2672. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Alomari, I., Al-Samarraie, H., & Yousef, R. (2019). The role of gamification techniques in promoting student learning: A systematic review. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 18, 395- 417. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Anim-Eduful, B., & Adu-Gyamfi, K. (2022). Chemistry Students' Conceptual Understanding of Organic Qualitative Analysis. Pedagogical Research, 7(4). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Anim-Eduful, B., & Adu-Gyamfi, K. (2022). Learning difficulties in chemistry: An overview of students’ conceptual understanding of molecular structures and chemical reactions. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(4), 512– 526. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Antonio, R. P., & Prudente, M. S. (2024). Effects of inquiry_based approaches on students’ higher_order thinking skills in science: A meta_analysis. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 12(1), 251–281. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Razavieh, A. (2010). Introduction to research in education . United States: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. In International Conference on English Language Teaching (pp. 720-729). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Assafuah-Drakow, A. (2018). Chemistry teachers’ perception of the use of simulation games in chemical equations balancing. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 3(6), 455- 460. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Atanan, Y., & Saithongdee, A. (2024). Computer Game Development for Balancing Chemical Equations Skill in Chemistry Education. Journal of Education and Learning, 13(3), 99-112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Audu, O. N., Omale, O. V., & Achimugu, L. (2025). EFFECT OF INTERACTIVE LECTURE METHOD ON STUDENTS’ATTITUDE TOWARDS CHEMISTRY IN SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL IN KOGI STATE. Journal of Science, Technology and Mathematics Pedagogy, 3(1), 104-117. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Austin, A. C., Ben-Daat, H., Zhu, M., Atkinson, R., Barrows, N., & Gould, I. R. (2015). Measuring student performance in general organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(1), 168-178. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Baiden-Amissah, J. E. N. N. I. F. E. R. (2023). Effect of mastery learning approach on senior high school students’ academic performance and motivation in biology (Doctoral dissertation, University of Education Winneba). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Bell, P. T., Adkins, A. D., Gamble, R. J., & Schultz, L. D. (2009). Enthalpy costs of making and breaking bonds: a game of generating molecules with proper Lewis structures. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(4), 450. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Bhandari, P. (2023). What Is Quantitative Research? Definition, Uses & Methods. Scribbr. Published June 12, 2020; Revised June 22, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Bhatti, M. T., Teevno, R. A., & Devi, S. (2021). Teaching Balancing of Chemical Equations through Phet Interactive Simulations and PowerPoint Presentation Slide Show Visualization Teaching Balancing of Chemical Equations through Phet Interactive Simulations and PowerPoint Presentation Slide Show Visualization. Elementary Education Online, 20(1), 4298-4317. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Bicer, A., Aldemir, T., Davis, T. J., & Young, J. (2025). Exploring the Transferability of STEM PBL Instructional Principles from Higher Education to K-12 Classrooms. Education Sciences, 15(1), 39. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Bílek, M., Nodzyńska, M., Kopek-Putała, W., & Zimak-Piekarczyk, P. (2018). Balancing chemical equations using sandwich making computer simulation games as a supporting teaching method. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 76(6), 779. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Bird, L. (2010). Logical reasoning ability and student performance in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(5), 541-546. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873–878. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Boonstra, J., Scager, K., Peeters, T., & de Vries, M. (2017). Collaborative learning in higher education: Evoking positive interdependence. CBE— Life Sciences Education, 16(4), 58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Burke, B. Gamify: How Gamification Motivates People to Do Extraordinary Things; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Byusa, E., Kampire, E., & Mwesigye, A. R. (2022). Game-based learning approach on students’ motivation and understanding of chemistry concepts: A systematic review of literature. Heliyon, 8(5). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Byusa, E., Mugisha, M., & Nzabahimana, E. (2022). Learner-centered approaches in chemistry education: A systematic review of research trends and outcomes. Journal of Chemical Education Research, 14(3), 45–63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Cabasan, M. I. T. (2025). Ma. Izabel T. Cabasan, Wilfred G. Alava Jr." Academic Performance and Attitude of Chemistry Learners through Class Point. International Journal of Science and Management Studies (IJSMS), 8, I3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Cabrera, Z. M. (2024). Game-based activities as a teaching strategy in chemistry for Grade 9 students at Francisco P. Felix Memorial National High School. Psychology and Education Journal, 11(3), 540-547. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Candelaria, P. C. (2023). Peer Tutoring on Enhancement of Mathematics Performance of Selected Grade 6 Students at Gregorio Herradura Elementary School, Victoria, Laguna, Philippines. International Journal of Education, Technology and Science, 3(2), 125-135. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Carpenter, Y. Y., Moore, E. B., & Perkins, K. K. (2016). ConfChem conference on interactive visualizations for chemistry teaching and learning: Using an interactive simulation to support development of expert practices for balancing chemical equations. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(6), 1150- 1151. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students’ ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90006F [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Chang, C. C., Liang, C., Chou, P. N., & Lin, G. Y. (2017). Is game-based learning better in flow experience and various types of cognitive load than non- game-based learning? Perspective from multimedia and media richness. Computers in human behavior, 71, 218-227. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Chen, C., Jones, K. T., & Xu, S. (2018). The Association between Students' Style of Learning Preferences, Social Presence, Collaborative Learning and Learning Outcomes. Journal of Educators Online, 15(1), n1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Chen, W., Diao, Y., & Zou, D. (2018). Effects of collaboration scripts and group awareness tools on domain-specific knowledge, higher-order thinking abilities, satisfaction, group task performance, and social I nteraction: A meta- analysis of computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Research Review, 25, 15-36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Chiotaki, D., Poulopoulos, V., & Karpouzis, K. (2023). Adaptive game-based learning in education: a systematic review. Frontiers in Computer Science, 5, 1062350. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Chowdhury, P., Rankhumise, M. P., & Sepeng, P. (2018). PERFORMANCE IN CHEMISTRY: A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECONDARY SCHOOLS. In 9th Annual UNISA ISTE CONFERENCE ON MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION (p. 150). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, B., Turner, L. A., & Christensen, L. B. (2011). Research methods, design, and analysis. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & education, 59(2), 661-686. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Cooper, M. M., Corley, L. M., & Underwood, S. M. (2013). An investigation of college chemistry students' understanding of structure–property relationships. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 699-721. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Curnow, O. J., & Pearson, J. K. (2023). Quantitative assessment on the effectiveness of a formal charge method for constructing Lewis (electron dot) structures. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(8), 3093- 3097. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Debit, J. S. P., Bacoba, H. M. P., Tabanao, M. M. C., & Walag, A. M. P. (2024). GamesBond: a game-based supplemental teaching material for ionic and covalent bonding. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(4), 1610-1617. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large_enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201783 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Ding, L, Kim, C. M., & Orey, M. (2020). Design of gamified asynchronous online discussions. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 29(5), 631– 647. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2020.1801495 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Elvira, M., Sainuddin, S., Aisyah, S., & Rasyid, M. N. A. (2024, December). The Impact of English Proficiency on the Academic Success of English Literature Students: An Analysis Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). In Proceeding of International Conference on Islamic Education (ICIED) (Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 425-437). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Eseryel, D., Law, V., Ifenthaler, D., Ge, X., & Miller, R. (2014). An investigation of the interrelationships between motivation, engagement, and complex problem solving in game-based learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 42-53. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Eze, T., & Okeke, S. (2021). The game as a strategy of learning chemistry among high school students. ResearchGate Preprint.Faculty Focus. (2024). Using collaborative learning to elevate students’ educational experiences. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Faoziah, A. D., Irwansyah, F. S., & Subarkah, C. Z. (2023). Making of Chemopoly Game Android-Based in Atomic Structure Material. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2646(1), 030017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Fridolin Sze Thou Ting, W. H. Lam, & R. H. Shroff (2019). Active learning via problem_based collaborative games in a large mathematics university course. Education Sciences, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030172 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548– 554. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Gao, X., & Jiang, Y. (2025). How gamification boosts learning in STEM higher education. International Journal of STEM Education, 12, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00521-3Gee, J. P. (2013). Good video games+ good learning . New York etc. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Girón-Gambero, J. R., & Franco-Mariscal, A. J. (2023). “Atomizados”: An Educational Game for Learning Atomic Structure. A Case Study with Grade-9 Students with Difficulties Learning Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(8), 3114-3123. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. González-Ortiz, M., et al. (2025). Gamifying an organic chemistry laboratory course as a strategy to increase student engagement. Journal of Chemical Education. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00139 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Grove, N. P., & Bretz, S. L. (2012). A continuum of learning: from rote memorization to meaningful learning in organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 201- 208. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Hadinugrahaningsih, T., Rahmawati, Y., & Suryani, E. (2022). An analysis of preservice Chemistry teachers’ misconceptions of reduction-oxidation reaction concepts. JOTSE, 12(2), 448-465. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Haleem, A. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: Game-based learning and academic performance. International Journal of Education and Teaching Methods, 2(3), 50–62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3025– 3034. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., & Edwards, T. (2016). Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow, and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170– 179 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2016). Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in human behavior, 54, 170-179. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Hartt, M., Hosseini, H., & Mostafapour, M. (2020). Game on: Exploring the effectiveness of game-based learning. Planning Practice & Research, 35(5), 589-604. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Hashi, A. O., Mohamud, A. O., & Farah, A. M. (2025). Factors Influencing Undergraduate Chemistry Performance: A Study on Attitudes, Laboratory Use, and Teaching Methods at Somali National University. International Journal of Education, Culture and Society, 10(1), 1-7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Hermanns, J. (2020). Training OC: a new course concept for training the application of basic concepts in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(2), 374-384. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28– 54. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Horowitz, G., Rabin, L. A., & Brodale, D. L. (2013). Improving student performance in organic chemistry: Help seeking behaviors and prior chemistry aptitude. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 120-133. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Hu, Y., Gallagher, T., Wouters, P., van der Schaaf, M., & Kester, L. (2022). Game‐based learning has good chemistry with chemistry education: A three‐level meta‐analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(9), 1499-1543. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Huang, W. H.-Y., Liang, S.-H., & Chou, C.-Y. (2017). The effectiveness of digital game- based learning in STEM education: A meta- analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Hudson, R. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2013). Which form of assessment provides the best information about student performance in chemistry examinations?. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(1), 49-65. 49-65. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Hussein, M. H., Ow, S. H., Cheong, L. S., Thong, M. K., & Ebrahim, N. A. (2019). Effects of digital game-based learning on elementary science learning: A systematic review. Ieee Access, 7, 62465-62478. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Hussein, M. H., Sulaiman, N. L., Noroozi, O., Elaish, M. M., & Alhasan, A. (2025). Value-added digital game-based learning in K-12 science education: a systematic literature review. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(5), 3282–3316. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Irwanto, I., Afrizal, A., Lukman, I. R., Putricia, D., & Wijayako, R. S. (2023). The impact of using the “Go-Chemist!” app on students’ motivation to learn atomic structure in Chemistry. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 13(9), 1500-1505. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Jegstad, K. M. (2024). Inquiry-based chemistry education: a systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 60(2), 251-313. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Kalir, J. H., Fahy, M., Kupperman, J., Schiff, F. M., & Stanzler, J. (2017). Playful Partnerships for Game-Based Learning in International Contexts. In ICT- Supported Innovations in Small Countries and Developing Regions: Perspectives and Recommendations for International Education (pp. 141-168). Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Kamkhou, P. (2023). Development of Grade 10 Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Dot Structure and Molecular Shape from Learning by Using Magnet and Pin Kits. International Journal of Science Education and Teaching, 2(2), 60-75. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. Karagiorgas, D.N.; Niemann, S. Gamification and game-based learning. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 2017, 45, 499–519. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Kaufmann, I., Hamza, K. M., Rundgren, C. J., & Eriksson, L. (2017). Developing an approach for teaching and learning about Lewis structures. International Journal of Science Education, 39(12), 1601- 1624. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Ke, F., Xie, K., & Xie, Y. (2016). Game‐based learning engagement: A theory‐and data‐driven exploration. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(6), 1183- 1201. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Kekeba, S. K., Gure, A., & Olkaba, T. T. (2025). Effects of jigsaw learning strategy integrated with computer simulations on grade 10 students’ achievement and attitude and their correlations in chemistry. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 22(1), 134-162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. Kellman, H. J., Jacoby, R., Massey, K., & Krasne, V. (2022). Gamification in medical education: A review of the current evidence and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 894831. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Kellman, P. J., Jacoby, V., Massey, C., & Krasne, S. (2022). Perceptual learning, adaptive learning, and gamification: Educational technologies for pattern recognition, problem solving, and knowledge retention in medical learning. In Technologies in biomedical and life sciences education: approaches and evidence of efficacy [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. Khasanah, A. N., & Rusmini, R. (2025). Development of Spinning Wheel- Based Question Thread Pull Media on Atomic Structure Material to Train Student Communication Skills. Jurnal Pijar Mipa, 20(4), 716-724. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Kijpoonphol, W., & Phumchanin, W. (2018). A comparison between traditional and gamified teaching methods for phrasal verb: a case of grade 10 students. TESOL International Journal, 13(3), 56-65. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. Klang, N., Karlsson, N., Kilborn, W., Eriksson, P., & Karlberg, M. (2021, August). Mathematical problem-solving through cooperative learning— the importance of peer acceptance and friendships. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 6, p. 710296). Frontiers Media SA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. Krystyniak, R. A. CHED 1 Investigation of the teaching of Lewis dot structures in the first-year chemistry course. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. Kuo, M.-S., & Chuang, T.-Y. (2016). How gamification motivates visits and engagement for online academic dissemination: An empirical study. International Journal of Serious Games, 3(3), 25-36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

90. Kurushkin, M., & Mikhaylenko, M. (2016). Orbital Battleship: A guessing game to reinforce atomic structure. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(9), 1595-1598. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

91. Lamidi, B. T., Oyelekan, O. S., & Olorundare, A. S. (2015). Effects of mastery learning instructional strategy on students’ achievement in chemistry. Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 19(5). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

92. Lancaster, K., Moore, E. B., Parson, R., & Perkins, K. K. (2013). Insights from using PhET’s design principles for interactive chemistry simulations. In Pedagogic roles of animations and simulations in chemistry courses (pp. 97-126). American Chemical Society. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

93. Leaño, J. R., & Belgica, T. H. B. (2023). Effectiveness of game-based lessons in improving the performance of grade 8 students in chemistry. United International Journal for Research & Technology, 4(7), 79-89. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

94. Li, L. (2019). Using game-based training to improve students’ assessment skills and intrinsic motivation in peer assessment. Innovations in education and teaching international, 56(4), 423-433. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

95. Lim, K. (2018). Lewis structures: Ban the octet rule. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(3), 584- 594. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

96. Liu, E.Z.F.; Chen, P.K. The effect of game-based learning on students’ learning performance in science learning—A case of “conveyance go”. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 103, 1044–1051. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

97. Liu, M., Rosenblum, J. A., Horton, L., & Kang, J. (2014). Designing science learning with game-based approaches. Computers in the Schools, 31(1-2), 84-102. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

98. Loes, C. N. (2022). The effect of collaborative learning on academic motivation. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 10(4), Article 10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

99. Lutfi, A., & Hidayah, R. (2021, June). Applying gamification to improve the quality of teaching and learning of Chemistry in high schools: A case study of Indonesia. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching (Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 1-17). The Education University of Hong Kong, Department of Science and Environmental Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

100. Lutfi, A., Aftinia, F., & Permani, B. E. (2023). Gamification: Game as a Medium for Learning Chemistry to Motivate and Increase Retention of Students' Learning Outcomes. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 13(1), 193-207. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

101. Manipon, M. N. O., & Noe, M. (2023). Effectiveness of ChemiCooking as a gamified intervention in nomenclature of compounds: learning experiences of grade 11 students in a public school. Int. Multidiscipl. Res. J, 5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

102. Manshoven, S., & Gillabel, J. (2021). Learning through play: a serious game as a tool to support circular economy education and business model innovation. Sustainability, 13(23), 13277. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

103. Mc Rollyn, D. V., & Prudente, M. S. (2024). Meta-analysis on the effectiveness of learning cycle models and online teaching strategies in chemistry education. International Journal of Instruction, 17(2), 335-350. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

104. McArdle, P. (2019). Systematic procedure for drawing Lewis structures based on electron pairing priority and the explicit use of donor bonds: An alternative to the normal procedure which can be pen and paper based or automated on a PC in user interactive 3D. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(7), 1412-1417. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

105. McEneany, J. E. (1991). A prototype expert system with applications in teacher training and the diagnosis and remediation of reading problems. Computers in the Schools, 8(1-3), 315-318. for learning (pp. 135-166). Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

106. Mendonça, L., & de Andrade, J. (2025). Gamifying an entire introductory organic chemistry course—again. Journal of Chemical Education. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01183 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

107. Michael, J. (2011). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

108. Miller, D. W. (2013). Atomic Structure Activities for Secondary Science (Master's thesis, University of Wisconsin - River Falls). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

109. Miller, D. W. (2013). Atomic structure activities for secondary science (Doctoral dissertation). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

110. Mostafapour, M., Hartt, M., & Hosseini, H. (2020). Game on: Exploring the effectiveness of game-based learning. Planning Practice & Research, 35(5), 589–604. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

111. Muna, S., & Purnawan, A. (2024). Gamification: Game as a medium for learning chemistry to motivate students. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 14(2), 368–381. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.2458 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

112. Mwangi, J. (2024). Impact of Digital Learning Tools on Student Performance in Kenya. African Journal of Education and Practice, 10(2), 13- 22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

113. Nassiff, P., & Czerwinski, W. A. (2015). Teaching beginning chemistry students simple Lewis dot structures. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(8), 1409- 1411. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

114. Nkadimeng, M. M. (2020). Minecraft as a learning tool: A focus on atomic structure in Grade 8 Natural Sciences (Master’s thesis, University of Johannesburg). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

115. Nuhari, I., Rahmi, R., Adiska, D. N., Hasja, Y., & Melissa, M. (2025, June). The Use of Uno Card Game to Improve Learning Outcomes of Grade X Students on The Topic of Atomic Structure at SMAN 12 Banda Aceh City. In Proceedings of International Conference on Education (Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 187-190).. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

116. Ochoa-Cueva, C., Cabrera-Solano, P., & Castillo-Cuesta, L. (2024). Implementing the CLIL Approach through Online Games in EFL Education. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 40, 175- 193. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

117. Osman, K., & Lee, T. T. (2014). Impact of metacognitive guidance on problem solving in chemistry. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 15(1), 1–21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

118. Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & education, 52(1), 1-12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

119. Pardo, J. Q. (1989). Teaching a model for writing Lewis structures. Journal of Chemical Education, 66(6), 456. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

120. Paye, C. L., Dunnagan, C. L., Tredwell, D. A., & Gallardo-Williams, M. T. (2021). Connecting the dots: Lewis structure builder web app as a review tool for organic chemistry.. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

121. Peragovics, Á., & Biró, E. (2021). Structure drawing at the heart of teaching chemistry. Chimia, 75(1-2), 54-54. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

122. Pham, T., Nguyen, H., & Le, Q. (2021). Effects of gamification on student learning motivation and autonomy in blended learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(1), 177- 197. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

123. Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational psychologist, 50(4), 258-283. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

124. Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational psychologist, 50(4), 258-283. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

125. Pratama, P., & Setyaningrum, D. (2018). The effect of game-based learning on students’ mathematical problem-solving skills and emotional outcomes: A study on Indonesian junior high school students. Indonesian Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(2), 134-145. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

126. Rahman, A. A., Najmuddin, A. F., Abdullah, M. F., Ibrahim, I. M., Shaffie, S. S., & Ismail, S. R. (2020). The Development of Atomic Game-Based Learning for Chemistry. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(11), 1364– 1372. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

127. Rajendran, M., Ray, M., Ilangovan, A., Xavier, Y. S., & Parthasarathy, G. (2025). Game-based learning and its impact on students’ motivation and academic performance. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 8(3), 2025074-2025074. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

128. Raupu, S., & Senaga, B. (2023). The Analysis of Students' Learning Difficulties in Algebraic Arithmetic Problems. SUJANA: Journal of Education and Learning Review, 2(2), 19- 23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

129. Rodrigues, J. B., & Nogueira, A. C. (2017). Cognitive variables and problem- solving in chemistry. Química Nova, 40(2), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.21577/0100-4042.20160191 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

130. Sadeghi, S. H. (2026). The effect of gamified e-learning on marine ecology education: insights from Iranian maritime students. Environmental Education Research, 32(3), 632-649. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

131. Sáez-López, J. M., Román-García, M., & Jiménez-Díaz, M. (2017). Collaborative Learning and Emotional Support in Science Education: Impacts on Academic Outcomes and Student Well-Being. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(3), 291- 302. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

132. Sagcal, R. M. (2025). Development of Practical Laboratory-Based Activities in General Chemistry for Grade 11 Students. International Journal of Research in Science and Innovative Studies, 10(3), 45-59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

133. San Gabriel, J. D., & Manalastas, A. S. Experimental Skills of Senior High School Students on Academic Performance in Chemistry. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

134. Santhanalakshmi, M. P., & Naomi, G. V. (2021). Impact of peer assisted learning strategy (PALS) for learning enhancement of students at secondary level. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(10), 7333-7336. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

135. Scager, K., Boonstra, J., Peeters, T., Vulperhorst, J., & Wiegant, F. (2016). Collaborative learning in higher education: Evoking positive interdependence. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar69. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

136. Schönborn, K. J., & Anderson, T. R. (2010). Bridging the educational research‐teaching practice gap: Foundations for assessing and developing biochemistry students' visual literacy. Biochemistry and molecular biology education, 38(5), 347-354. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

137. Seery, M. K. (2020). Active learning in chemistry: A review of research and pedagogical approaches. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(11), 3625- 3636. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

138. Sinaga, B., Sitorus, J., & Situmeang, T. (2023, February). The influence of students’ problem-solving understanding and results of students’ mathematics learning. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 8, p. 1088556). Frontiers Media SA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

139. Singh, S., Hansda, S., & Kumari, K. Improving the Concept of Balancing Chemical Equations, through Games among Students of Class VIII of a Government School in Patna. EduTimes, 64. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

140. Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489– 528. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

141. Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Krauter, K., & Knight, J. K. (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in_class concept questions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10_08_0101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

142. Sørensen, L., Bílek, P., & Nodzyńska, M. (2018). Balancing chemical equations using sandwich-making computer simulation games as a supporting teaching method. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(2), 315– 330. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

143. Stojanovska, M., & Velevska, B. (2018). Chemistry games in the classroom: A pilot study. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(2), 113-142. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

144. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). In Proceeding of International Conference on Islamic Education (ICIED) (Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 425-437). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

145. Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Liu, T. C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students' learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252-275. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

146. Suparman, A. R., Rohaeti, E., & Wening, S. (2024). Student misconception in chemistry: A systematic literature review. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 14(2), 238-252. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

147. Szeto, M. D., Strock, D., Anderson, J., Sivesind, T. E., Vorwald, V. M., Rietcheck, H. R., ... & Dellavalle, R. P. (2021). Gamification and game-based strategies for dermatology education: narrative review. JMIR dermatology, 4(2), e30325. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

148. Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156-168. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

149. Taber, K. S. (2013). Modeling learners and learning in science education. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

150. Taglorin, H. L. L., Nabua, E. B., Latonio, B. C., & BOLOCON, J. (2025). Least mastered competencies in Grade 10 chemistry and their motivation levels: A basis for pedagogical intervention. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, IX (II), 1008-1021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

151. Taglorin, H. L., Nabua, E. B., Latonio, B. C., & Bolocon, A. (2025). Mastery and confidence level of Grade 11 STEM learners in general chemistry. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

152. Tahir, R., & Wang, A. I. (2024). Evaluating the effectiveness of game-based learning for teaching refugee children Arabic using the integrated LEAGUÊ- GQM approach. Behaviour & Information Technology, 43(1), 110-138. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

153. Talanquer, V. (2010). Exploring dominant types of explanations built by general chemistry students. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2393–2412. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

154. Talanquer, V. (2014). Chemistry Education: Ten Cognitive Heuristics to Tame Student Thinking. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(6), 769- 776. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

155. Tan, E., & Hew, K. F. (2017). A comparison of interactive and conventional instruction in improving secondary students’ science achievement. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(6), 683–697. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

156. Tan, Y. L. L. (2018). Meaningful gamification and students’ motivation: a strategy for scaffolding reading material. Online Learning, 22(2), 141- 155. doi: 10.24059/olj.v22i2.1167 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

157. Terrell, J. E. (2016). Instructional methods and engagement: The impact of gamification on student learning of APA style. University of Arkansas. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

158. Tiettmeyer, J. M., Coleman, A. F., Balok, R. S., Gampp, T. W., Duffy, P. L., Mazzarone, K. M., & Grove, N. P. (2017). Unraveling the complexities: An investigation of the factors that induce load in chemistry students constructing Lewis structures. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(3), 282– 288. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

159. Toma, R. B., & Greca, I. M. (2018). The effect of integrative STEM instruction on elementary students’ attitudes toward science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1383-1395. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

160. Toquero, C. M. D., Sonsona, D. A., & Talidong, K. J. B. (2021). Game-based learning: Reinforcing a paradigm transition on pedagogy amid COVID- 19 to complement emergency online education. International Journal of Didactical Studies, 2(2), 10458. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

161. Tümay, H. (2016). Reconsidering learning difficulties and misconceptions in chemistry: emergence in chemistry and its implications for chemical education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 229-245. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

162. Tunç, M., & Göktaş, Y. (2023). Gamification in education: A scoping review of literature reviews. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1306298. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

163. Ummahati, D., & Suprihatiningrum, J. (2024). Utilizing Animaker in Producing Interactive Chemistry Learning Media on the Topic of Atomic Structure. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 10(11), 8942-8951. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

164. Vallespin, M. R. D., & Prudente, M. S. (2024). Meta-analysis on the effectiveness of learning cycle models and online teaching strategies in chemistry education. International Journal of Instruction, 17(2), 335- 350. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

165. Varenina, L., Vecherinina, E., Shchedrina, E., Valiev, I., & Islamov, A. (2021). RETRACTED: Developing critical thinking skills in a digital educational environment. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

166. Verma, D., & Katoch, K. S. (2024). Collaborative learning: Perceptions of teacher educators. Voices of Teachers and Teacher Educators, 13(1), 57-68. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

167. Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2017). The effect of games and simulations on higher education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

168. Von Glasersfeld, E. A constructivist approach to teaching. In Constructivism in Education; Steffe, L., Gale, J., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: Stanford, CA, USA, 1995; pp. 3–16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

169. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

170. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The history of the development of higher mental functions. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1, pp. 11-230). Plenum Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

171. Wang, L. C., & Chen, M. P. (2010). The effects of game strategy and preference‐matching on flow experience and programming performance in game‐based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 39-52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

172. Wang, L. C., & Chen, M. P. (2010). The effects of game strategy and preference‐matching on flow experience and programming performance in game‐based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 39-52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

173. Wegwerth, S. E., Urrea, A., Nischik, D. R., & Winter, J. E. (2024). The Lewis Structure Explorer: Accessible by design. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

174. Wouters, P., Van Nimwegen, C., Van Oostendorp, H., & Van Der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games.Journal of educational psychology, 105(2), 249. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

175. Yang, S. C. (2021). Student engagement and academic performance in gamified science learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(2), 853–872. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

176. Zahariev, F., Xu, P., Westheimer, B. M., Webb, S., Galvez Vallejo, J., Tiwari, A., ... & Gordon, M. S. (2023). The general atomic and molecular electronic structure system (gamess): Novel methods on novel architectures. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 19(20), 7031-7055. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

177. Zhou, W., Xu, Z., & Zhao, J. (2023). A Novel Lewis Structure and Its Utilization in the Examination of Mechanisms of Organic Chemical Reactions. Journal of ChemicalEducation, 100(9), 3694–3702. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Green Synthesis of Cobalt Oxide/Gold (Coo/Au) Bimetallic Nanoparticles Using Sinapinic Acid: A Comprehensive Study
• Advances in Solar Cell Technologies: A Comprehensive Review of Material Synthesis, Structural Properties, Efficiency and Diverse Applications
• Thermal Decomposition of Co-Fe-Cr-Citrate Complex Via Structural and Spectral Study
• Surface Activity and Thermodynamic Assessment of Surfactants Derived from Oreochromis Niloticus Oil (Nile Tilapia Fish)
• Green Synthesis of Robust Metal-Organic Frameworks: A Sustainable Approach for Advanced Applications